QUICK LINKS
Thank You, Seattle Times
In a recent article entitled, “Supreme Court Race: Candidates’ Views Easy to Tell Apart,” the Seattle Times did the Puget Sound area, as well as the State of Washington, a valuable service.
Often voters have difficulty defining exactly what judicial candidates are all about. We have done all we could do to inform voters and now are grateful that the Times has used their influence to further inform in ways that and to an extent that we cannot.
The Times says, “Voters have a distinct choice in the Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice Susan Owens and State Sen. Steve Johnson.”
Indeed they do. And the Times endorses Johnson. The Times says that Owens has endorsements from labor unions, environmentalists, gay-rights groups and Democratic Party organizations, while Johnson, who has a solidly conservative track record in the legislature, is backed by the building industry, major business groups and social conservatives.
Owens spent 19 years as a district court judge in Clallam County. Before that, she worked for about 11 years as a tribal-court judge.
Johnson has served three terms in the State Senate, where he is the ranking Republican on the judiciary committee. Before that he worked for more than 30 years as a private attorney in Seattle.
The Times points out that, “the two have extensive – and sharply contrasting public records. The clearest example is their opposite stand on the state’s gay-marriage ban.”
The Times explains that Johnson helped pass the Defense of Marriage Act, while Owens was one of the four WA Supreme Court Justices who voted, earlier this year, to overturn the law.
The article also reminds citizens that Owens sided with the majority in a 7-2 ruling that gave co-parenting rights to a lesbian who helped raise a child, even though the woman wasn’t the girl’s biological or adoptive parent.
The most important statement, in my view, is a quote by Steve Johnson that ends the article. He says, “I hope people understand that this is a different job, it’s not a policy-making job.”
Therein is the choice. Owens is a proven judicial activist, pushing her own agenda, while Johnson believes that a judge’s roll is to not make policy, but to interpret the law to the best of his ability.
That is all any conservative or person of faith asks – that judges stay with interpreting the law and leave law and policy making to those whom we elect to do so.
The Times is right on this one. Voters have a distinct choice for the Supreme Court
______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
20 Comments:
I'm still wondering why these are our only two choices. Aren't judge positions supposed to be non-partisan? Both these candidates seem to be clearly partisan. Seems like if we truly don't want judges to legislate from the bench then we shouldn't pick ones so clearly affiliated with a party.
By the way - I'm SHOCKED the Times endorsed the Republican. That only goes along with, oh, say, EVERY SINGLE ENDORSEMENT they've ever done. That paper is almost as transparently Republican in all they do as this website is.
if Owen's agenda is so set, what is it?
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It is about time the media put out some useful information and accurately non-biased!
The judge position is non-partisan. What they are showing us is their judicial philosophy. The issue of gay marriage was flushed out more in the article. Johnson said it wasn't just a matter of his own opinion but that of his constituants coming into play as well. That is the proper role of a legislator. If you don't like his position vote him out.
What Gary graciously left out of his blog was quotes by Susan Owens. She made very clear in the Times article that activism is proper in her eyes. That is not the role of a judge. That is the role of a legislator.
I prefer one who follows the democratic process and doesn't overstep the authority and power they were given.
When you consider that most of this state opposes gay marriage, that amplifies Owens abuse of power even more. I wish you all had the benefit of reading the Times article.
From AFA:
Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy. And the Democratic Party says it will help them achieve their goal.
Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.
Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.
The Democrat National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort occurred in Illinois where the Democrats helped the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state, including a donation of $10,000.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
Anon @3:08,
If Johnson claims he will take the opinions of his "constituants" in mind when deciding cases, that is the very definition of both judicial activism and the politcalization of the courts.
The opions of "constituants" should be irrelevant, cases should be decided based on THE LAW.
Fact is Johnson would be a judical activist, just one for your side.
-JC
JC that is not what I said nor is it what Johnson said.
He is currently a legislator. He takes his constituents opinions in mind. That is his job as a legislator.
He has made very clear that the role of a legislator is very different from a judge.
You are correct in saying that "The opinions of "constituants" should be irrelevant, cases should be decided based on THE LAW." which is what I said to begin with.
ps in case that is still not clear--your quote relates to CASES which a judge deals with.
Legislators create law and the opinion of a constituant should be taken into consideration. NOT so for a JUDGE.
Steve Johnson understands that fundamental distinction and made it clear in Gary's quote of Steve and in the Times article.
The same can not be said about Susan Owens.
(AgapePress) - The executive director of an organization that offers support to members and to the families of members of the "ex-gay" community -- former homosexuals and those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction -- has a unique perspective on the Mark Foley scandal. While reproaches and recriminations abound in the media, she says someone needs to offer the disgraced former Congressman and others like him a message of hope and truth.
Regina Griggs of the group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX, says it is not enough for the public discourse to ignore Foley's homosexuality or to affirm its existence while condemning his immoral and possibly criminal actions -- specifically his alleged sending of sexually suggestive e-mails to underage boys in the Congressional Page Program. But even getting to the bottom of a criminal investigation of the allegations against Foley, she suggests, would not adequately address his situation.
"So why are we not providing hope? Why are we not publishing the facts?" Griggs wants know. And why is no one really telling the clear though politically incorrect truth -- about the link between his sexual initiation and his sexual orientation -- to "people like Mr. Foley, who decided that he was gay based on something that took place during his teen years?" she asks.
This scandal is an opportunity to spotlight two truths, the PFOX official asserts. One, she says, is that homosexuality is often the result of molestation of children and youths; and the other is that many of those victims have still managed to come out of the homosexual lifestyle.
"My concern is that people who are buying into [the notion of] 'born gay, cannot change' do not realize that there is hope and there is healing available," Griggs notes. It is important to give voice to these facts, she contends, because the message of recovery from homosexuality is being silenced by homosexual activists, who are instead directing youth that have been molested into a homosexual identity.
"If we want to stop this type of behavior, and if we don't want to see it reproduced, then we have to begin to provide information for all men and women," the ex-gay outreach spokeswoman says. The victims caught in this tragic cycle and other homosexuals "have to know there's an answer," she insists.
The teenage molestation incident that former Congressman Foley says introduced him to homosexuality is unfortunately a very common phenomenon, Griggs points out. And it is a graphic example of why treatment to keep sexual disorientation or gender mis-identity from occurring is so vital. "The truth is out there," she says; "it's time to make it known."
gurufrisbee said...
I'm still wondering why these are our only two choices. Aren't judge positions supposed to be non-partisan? Both these candidates seem to be clearly partisan.
They had quite a few candidates in the primary , but if one candidate does not get 50 percent , the next two go to the November Ballot .
Maybe in the long run this could be good , its hard to know about Judges , maybe they will set up a system in the future that is more civil and informative .
I am a conservative , and I vote that way usually unless i Know the other is better at a position because of experience or whatver .
Johnson sees the Constitition as it is written and uses previous rulings as precedent . Owens sees the Constituion as the living document deal , thats why she voted for gay marriage .. The real stickler for me is is her overturning a vast number of sentences of the folks who murdered people , she and four other Judges ruled that if a person say beat a person to death with a baseball bat , but the state could not prove the intent was to kill , the person could NOT be tried for murder . Thus allowing previous sentenced murderers FREE , out the door , bye bye .
I know the conservative organizations and vctim rights groups made a big deal of it , the mainstream media really made light of it I thought .
Anyway , I be in the minority , and most people vote for the incumbent , which in this state means the liberal ... But to your statement before that people who don't know should not vote , well I wish people knew about all those murdering slobs , and knew about all those families who saw the one who murdered their love ones go free. The state is suppose to protect the citizens from the bad guys , not have Judges free the bad guys so they can do it again .
Its why I am against hate crime laws , we are requiring juries to know the mind of perverted killers . If a guy kills a gay man or balck man or a white guy , for what ever reason sorry you go to jail and throw away the key .. This kind of thinking just perverts the justice system .
Now I know somehow there is a guy Human out there who believes this is an Evangelical plot to cause havoc on the justice system , to me its nothing to do with religion , just common sense and my point of view .
What is most disturbing of FFN's political race is that they endorse candidates in every way accept using the word endorse.
They are flaunting at least the spirit of the law that says that religious organization are tax exempt, unless they endorse candidates.
Religious organizations even have the right to participate in politics, as long as it is issue based. FFN and Mr. Randall push that restriction to the limit (passed it in my non-legal opinion).
And Gay rights groups and atheists have way overpushed their rights. I do not see how faith and freedom is overstepping the right of free speech. You have to sign on to get thier email.Atheists have taken God out of school and government.It should be my right to get my child a education with God in it with my tax dollars. Gay rights groups are pushing their way into schools and Government.
Anon 3:33
I am puzzled why you have a problem with polygamy. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding the scriptures, David had several wives AND concubines (mistresses); however, God found no blame in him except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
Seems clear that "traditional" marriage is more a worldly/cultural (progressive??) concept rather than a Biblical concept.
Peace,
Human
Anon 6:55
If you want to a public education to include God because it is paid for by your tax dollars, you will have a LOT of wrestling with the Islamic community, the homosexual community, etc., etc. They all pay for public education by their tax dollars as well.
Frankly, I am a little surprised that you would open up this can of worms.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
I would think that genuine disciples would not want ANYONE teaching about God - neither I nor my children need to hear from any crack-pot about Christmas or Easter, or their view of God, etc., etc.
I am delighted to have a completely secularized public forum. Then the name of Jesus can be most accurately portrayed by them who genuinely know Him.
Peace,
In Christ,
Human
The fact remains that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Unless we teach those principles to our children, they will have no understanding of the how and why our country was set up the way it was. A study was done of the Founder's quotes, to see what had influenced them to set up our government the way it was. They found that 8.3% of the quotes were from Baron Charles de Montesquie, 7.9% from the great commentator on law, Sir William Blackstone, 2.9% of the quotes were from John Locke, and a great number from a variety of other sources. But the number one source of quotes with a whopping 34% was from the Bible. It is an important document in the history of our country, and needs to be taught in public schools.
6:55pm...
You are so lucky! You want to teach your children biblical principles with your tax dollars?
Great, the absolutely PERFECT place for it is your church.
It's very knowledgable in your religion, and because it receives tax supported community services and protections while tax excempt, your tax dollars actually do support it defacto.
The following is just information of our beginnings . Glad we are not there anymore , but it is interesting in my county some tax dollars in form of a grant are being sent to a youth organization that is dedicated ONLY to a Homosexual youth . Not a violation of any law , as were these individual litmus tests in the state constitutions , its just the groups competing for the grant were the local Boys and Girls Club , and after school programs dedicated to all youth . Seems our politics in certain areas continue only target certain groups with a litmus test . The thousands of dollars and the small percentage of this organization , which h basically is a political organization , only support a handful of kids they use to promote an agenda , they exploite these kids in my opinion for political purposes .
An establishment of religion, in terms of direct tax aid to churches, was the situation in nine of the thirteen colonies on the eve of the American revolution. (1)Within a period of seventeen years, that had been reversed. By approximately 1791, nine of eleven states that ratified the amendments of 1789 had ended that support
The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.
The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.
The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.
Mick,
Could you provide the original source material of the office requirments noted above?
Thanks for your help,
Human
Once again we find hypocrisy amongst the highest ranks of the defenders of "traditional American values." Me thinks the theocrat protest too much.
Post a Comment
<< Home